I don’t get DACA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem overly complicated to me. If my parents stood money from a bank or embezzled a bunch of money and gave it me I do not get to keep it; or do I?

I just do not see what the big deal is to have the kids go through the normal immigration process, or am I missing some other part of this debate?

I am assuming you are asking these questions genuinely. Suppose you adopt a child from say, China, and bring that child (may be months old or a toddler) into the U.S. for living with you. The child had no say in your bringing the child to the U.S. Then you bring the child up to be an adult in the U.S. The child knows only the American society and life in the U.S. All known people to the child are in the U.S. only. The child never visited China, doesn't know anyone in China, and may or may not speak Chinese language. After the child became an adult, having graduated from a college, gainfully employed, and never committed any crime, suppose the Government says you should send the now adult back to China (suppose your earlier adoption process had a flaw and so deemed invalid) and should follow existing immigration procedures to come back to the U.S. and not rely on your sponsorship (since parents of DACA children are themselves unauthorized to live in the U.S. they can't sponsor DACA children for U.S. citizenship).

How would you feel? How would your now grown adopted son/daughter feel?

They came legally.

DACA is a problem and could have been solved by Congress long ago if either side was willing to compromise. But, as long as you give these kids citizenship, they will keep coming. That's one reason we have the issue with unaccompanied minors.

Obama should have put pressure on Congress, not issued an EO.

The full Senate, President Obama and the House Dems all had an agreement. Only Paul Ryan stopped comprehensive immigration reform. GOP constantly likes to show how it "governs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

Such as?

[Anonymous]

If a parent jaywalks with their child, should the child also get a ticket?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

[Anonymous]

Won't this just encourage more foreigners to bring their children into the US illegally?

I get the argument about how the children were not at fault, but I also think that the US needs to enforce its laws. If there is something wrong with the law, then the law should be changed. But allowing people to break the law without penalty is a problem for me, as is anything that would encourage illegal behavior in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem overly complicated to me. If my parents stood money from a bank or embezzled a bunch of money and gave it me I do not get to keep it; or do I?

I just do not see what the big deal is to have the kids go through the normal immigration process, or am I missing some other part of this debate?

I am assuming you are asking these questions genuinely. Suppose you adopt a child from say, China, and bring that child (may be months old or a toddler) into the U.S. for living with you. The child had no say in your bringing the child to the U.S. Then you bring the child up to be an adult in the U.S. The child knows only the American society and life in the U.S. All known people to the child are in the U.S. only. The child never visited China, doesn't know anyone in China, and may or may not speak Chinese language. After the child became an adult, having graduated from a college, gainfully employed, and never committed any crime, suppose the Government says you should send the now adult back to China (suppose your earlier adoption process had a flaw and so deemed invalid) and should follow existing immigration procedures to come back to the U.S. and not rely on your sponsorship (since parents of DACA children are themselves unauthorized to live in the U.S. they can't sponsor DACA children for U.S. citizenship).

How would you feel? How would your now grown adopted son/daughter feel?

They came legally.

DACA is a problem and could have been solved by Congress long ago if either side was willing to compromise. But, as long as you give these kids citizenship, they will keep coming. That's one reason we have the issue with unaccompanied minors.

Obama should have put pressure on Congress, not issued an EO.

The ^PP stated that what if something was wrong with the paperwork, and it wasn't legal".

Obama did try to put pressure on Congress. Tea Party was not going to budge. Why didn't Trump put more pressure on Congress to pass the budget to fund the wall rather than take the funds from the military?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

DP. Why? Both parents committed a crime that benefitted the children. You want to penalize his children for his actions, reward the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't this just encourage more foreigners to bring their children into the US illegally?

I get the argument about how the children were not at fault, but I also think that the US needs to enforce its laws. If there is something wrong with the law, then the law should be changed. But allowing people to break the law without penalty is a problem for me, as is anything that would encourage illegal behavior in the future.

As another PP pointed out, many immigrants throughout history came here illegaly, not just those across the southern border. If you visit Ellis Island, you'll see exhibits that show how some people lied to get into the country. I think our FLOTUS lied on her green card application, too. By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't this just encourage more foreigners to bring their children into the US illegally?

I get the argument about how the children were not at fault, but I also think that the US needs to enforce its laws. If there is something wrong with the law, then the law should be changed. But allowing people to break the law without penalty is a problem for me, as is anything that would encourage illegal behavior in the future.

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

[Anonymous]

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

If she broke the law, then she should be punished for doing so.

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

And I would be fine with that. Just because we were bad about enforcing the law in the past does not mean that we shouldn't enforce it now. Again, I am open to the idea of changing bad laws, but not to the idea of selective enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Except for a few ships that were sent back, the U.S. policy was to encourage emigration. Seriously - some moron thinks the brand new country who was getting financial help to fight it's war for independence and then it's civil war had money to issue citizenship cards.

Smh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

DP. Why? Both parents committed a crime that benefitted the children. You want to penalize his children for his actions, reward the others.

DP.. Children of Madoff won't be completely destitute. There are social services that would help.

It's not an appropriate comparison. You're talking about kicking someone out of their own country. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it's their country. This is all they know. Imagine if they were brought here at the age of one or two. People like that were practically born here. I immigrated here at two (yes, legally, I'm now a citizen). When people ask if I was born here, I say, no, I'm an immigrant; I came here at two. Their response is usually, oh, you were practically born here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

If she broke the law, then she should be punished for doing so.

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

And I would be fine with that. Just because we were bad about enforcing the law in the past does not mean that we shouldn't enforce it now. Again, I am open to the idea of changing bad laws, but not to the idea of selective enforcement.

Sure you would... in hindsight. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

If she broke the law, then she should be punished for doing so.

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

And I would be fine with that. Just because we were bad about enforcing the law in the past does not mean that we shouldn't enforce it now. Again, I am open to the idea of changing bad laws, but not to the idea of selective enforcement.

But she's not. And yes, she did break the law. They were supposed to have a press conference to clear all that up, remember? It never happened. Why? Because they know she did break the law. Otherwise, why wouldn't they clear it up once and for all, like when Obama released his birth certificate to shut the birtherism up.. not that it helped with the racists.